<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (2) TMI 596 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786448</link>
    <description>Pre-deposit already made at the first appellate stage was treated as satisfying the Tribunal&#039;s pre-deposit requirement; consequence: no further pre-deposit is required to institute the Tribunal appeal. Where the e filing system fails to accept an appeal within four weeks, physical filing is permitted and the Tribunal must accept it without demanding a fresh pre-deposit. The High Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction because the Appellate Tribunal was not fully functional; consequence: the writ was disposed permitting filing and leaving all merits to the Tribunal. Limitation was not invoked because the petitioner bona fide pursued available remedies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:04:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 596 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786448</link>
      <description>Pre-deposit already made at the first appellate stage was treated as satisfying the Tribunal&#039;s pre-deposit requirement; consequence: no further pre-deposit is required to institute the Tribunal appeal. Where the e filing system fails to accept an appeal within four weeks, physical filing is permitted and the Tribunal must accept it without demanding a fresh pre-deposit. The High Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction because the Appellate Tribunal was not fully functional; consequence: the writ was disposed permitting filing and leaving all merits to the Tribunal. Limitation was not invoked because the petitioner bona fide pursued available remedies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>